Genesis 6

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.


God put forth that mans life span will not reach past 120 years.
Yet we have the oldest living person who lived well beyond that 120 mark.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_living_person


"The longest unambiguously documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875–1997), who died aged 122 years and 164 days. "

So what does this say about the 'Literal Genesis". Clearly we have a person that has outlived Gods word...how can that be?

btw, that passage refers directly to the period of time before God brought the Flood upon the earth (i.e. He gave Noah a 120 year warning, which is difficult to comprehend), and indirectly to maximum life spans after the time of the Flood

Not true. This directly applies to 'man'. This notion of it being a timespan for the flood is a twist, there is no dual meaning to this. God specifically states "My spirit shall not always strive with man" Thus He is addressing man as a being, not as a timeline for the flood....

Lets look at the whole passage and this is clear for this passages timeline

1And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


At first, God gets upset about "the Sons of God" taking wives, so he places man to only live to be 120 years. My assumption is that these 'angels' were immortal, so God punishes them by making their wives die an early age, so that they cannot enjoy a long life with them...its a curse on them.

Then God gets ticked off about the wickedness of man and then decides to flood the earth to kill them off.

The two events are separate, one to punish the Sons of God, the second to punish the wickedness of men.

Its all to clear that you want the two to be intertwined, but they are not.


Again I pose the question, how can Genesis be taken literally if the word of God does stand?

What happened to all the people that lived to 700+ years? Where are they in this?

noah was a drunk

pep owns this thread.
btw pep, until I saw you pic, i thought you were younger than me all this time. do you dislike atheists or something?

yes, it does, but that doesn't nullify my point, which was 100% correct...God gave the world, through Noah (a "preacher of righteousness", as stated in the epistles) 120 years to repent before the Flood came upon the earth...the secondary meaning is the life spans of generations well after the Flood...the context of Genesis 6 is preparation for the Flood! God's immediate audience was Noah! 1 + 1 = 2!

Unfortunately, you are wrong and there are examples: And your 'scholars' are probably AIG members...nice try. Your 1+1 = FAIL and out of context.

Deut 34
7 Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone.

God didn't even let Moses see the promised land! 120 years and his time was up, this is stated twice in Deut.


you have a left field, undiscerning, liberal opinion, from a standpoint of attacking the authority of God's Word....you're so far out of line it's beyond words

tisk tisk tisk....attack the issue not the person.

:nono::nono:

why an atheist is commenting about a thread concerning Genesis is the real question

and where is superhack's pic? link?

LOL, if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen there YZF.

BTW, if I get a warning for calling you skidMArk outside of smacktalk, you should at least get a warning for calling me superhack.

why an atheist is commenting about a thread concerning Genesis is the real question

and where is superhack's pic? link?

why is it that you think you have to believe in god to understand religion?

so what? has absolutely no bearing on the issue at hand: the context of Genesis 6


Yes it does, God commanded that man only live to 120. I was stating an example of this curse following through, that even Moses was bound to it. Thats it.... geeze, you want to twist everything :rolleyes:




the context is clearly God's grievance with man at that time when demons were interbreeding with human women, and God promised to put a stop to the struggle within 120 years...period, end of story...you lose (yet again)

LOL, thanks for re-stating my argument, but there are two separate punishments here for two separate events: The interbreeding resulting with a curse of 120 year lifespan, and the flood because of mans wickedness.

No matter how much you want to interrelate the two, you can't. And any attempt to do so clearly takes everything all out of context.

:rolleyes: - nice try there YZF

http://www.bibletimelines.org/framedflood.html

They state in this article that the 120 years does not apply to the building of the Ark, thus it must only apply to the lifespan of man.
"
Q. How long did it take Noah to build the ark? A lot of people say 120 years but I can find no scripture to back this up.

(Submitted by: M. S. )

A. There is nowhere in Scripture that supports the 120 years for the construction of the ark."

You just owned your self. The 120 year lifespan of man, as set forth by God still stands, thanks for re-iterating my point...it couldn't of been the number of years to build the ark. :roll:

And I'm sure that those that did live pst this 120 years were already over that, it probably meant that those who had not reached that mark will be subject to the 120 year old kill.

So how come there has been a person that has lived passed this 120 years?

read the first bullet, dingbat

"Noah preached and warned the people for 120 years before the Flood"

yes, there is nothing is scripture to indicate it took 120 years to phsyically build the ark, but I never claimed that! so you're raising a strawman (which is typical of your jacked up debate style)...I did say Noah was a "preacher of righteousness" and the world was given 120 years to repent, which is what that link clearly states!


Again I point out that they are mixing up two separate events....sure they want to have it this way to prove their skewed point, but they have it wrong...you own nothing but FAIL.

the text of Genesis 6 does not refer directly to lifespans after the Flood...period

Unfortunately for you it does...lets look at the passage more closely

3And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Who was the last man to speak directly with God...that's right, Moses.
Also Moses live to be 120 years, directly fulfilling Gods promise in this passage.

God placed a bench mark here, placing this 120 years against the lifespan of man and re-iterating it with the death of Moses by placing him as the last to speak with God, or in a better way , His "spirit shall not always strive with man". The two are related! yet you fail to see the Truth!

It only when Calvin got it wrong and placed this 120 years did it get twisted with the ark.

Any Jewish scholar will back me up with this one. BTW look at Gen 47:9, even Jacobs statement re-iterates this point.

and I could post many more links that say essentially the same thing, while no decent scholar supports your position as the primary meaning of this text

/thread

LOL you wish this was the end of the thread.....but its not and you will be humbled.

yer not interested in any facts. lay off the crack. you weigh 190 now since the pic. you are slowly dieing friend.

who?

butt out, moron

Hey I thought that you were going to quit this section....now you are back?


Anyway, here is a few quick links that agree with me.

Man’s life is shortened due, apparently, to further sin.

Jewish torah study
http://www.karaiteinsights.com/php/article.php5?id=06

(3) And YHWH said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.'

And I'll give you extra points if you can tell me why YAHWEH is spelled YHWH....and no googling it either. (yes I learned this from my Jewish cousin at his bat mitzvah...the poor dude!)




BUT...

This gets even worse.

Lets take your side, and say that this 120 years is part of the flood time line and kick it out.

Instead lets take a look a Psalms 90

8 You have set our iniquities before you,
our secret sins in the light of your presence.

9 All our days pass away under your wrath;
we finish our years with a moan.

10 The length of our days is seventy years—
or eighty, if we have the strength;
yet their span [a] is but trouble and sorrow,
for they quickly pass, and we fly away.

11 Who knows the power of your anger?
For your wrath is as great as the fear that is due you.

12 Teach us to number our days aright,
that we may gain a heart of wisdom.

What ??? we are now working backward?

I even have relatives that have lived passed 100 years...how can this be if Psalms 90 says that its 70-80 years??

How can this be ?

the Psalmist sets no absolute upper limit on human life spans, just as the passage in Genesis does not set an absolute definitive limit, it's an observation of typical/average life spans

the problem is you're (continually) in a position of doubt looking for proof...you don't have confidence in the scripture (at all), but seem to be on a quest of finding some minutia detail (like kevin), where you can claim "aha! it's all false! I'm off the hook!"

that's not the position of someone who calls themselves a Christian, that's someone on the outside looking in, the lowest rung on the faith ladder

ASSumption on your part. Doubt looking for proof? LOL again, you never really answer any question do you...I thought the bible had all of the answers and you knew them?

I am just bringing up some valid questions. Instead you go on a character attack....just like that wacko who shot up the church because they were 'liberal'.

Jeez, I thought you said you were some sort of bible scholar too :rolleyes:
Just another dude with a 10 gauge.

blah, you can't make it through one post without an "lol", you're a mindless piece of trash

Hey thanks for proving my point there 'christian'

blah, you can't make it through one post without an "lol", you're a mindless piece of trash

I disagree. All should show laughter as it reduces stress. maybe you need more sleep. And pep isn't mindless. He thinks for himself.

I disagree. All should show laughter as it reduces stress. maybe you need more sleep. And pep isn't mindless. He thinks for himself.

Thanks man...nice compliment.

still 100% correct

Nope pretty much the Calvinist view has it all wrong...some 'Elect' :rolleyes:

I'll let bx respond to that :)

What, you don't have an opinion on that for yourself? That's a first, especially since you've been post whoring the whole Religion section....

Nope pretty much the Calvinist view has it all wrong...some 'Elect' :rolleyes:

What the @#$! I cannot accept this insolence. Do you care to back this statement up with something to discuss? I rarely interact with you because I cannot fathom how you can call yourself a Christian but so staunchly insist that the creation story isn't possibly literal. Now that you've decided to throw Calvin under the bus I'm personally insulted. In fact when I read your words, I was close to gouging out my eyes that they should ever see such a hideously slanderous statement. Curse the day you were born for ever suggesting such a thing against the blessed CALVIN (peace and blessings upon his name). You've gone too far! I insist you retract your statement.

What the @#$! I cannot accept this insolence. Do you care to back this statement up with something to discuss? I rarely interact with you because I cannot fathom how you can call yourself a Christian but so staunchly insist that the creation story isn't possibly literal. Now that you've decided to throw Calvin under the bus I'm personally insulted. In fact when I read your words, I was close to gouging out my eyes that they should ever see such a hideously slanderous statement. Curse the day you were born for ever suggesting such a thing against the blessed CALVIN (peace and blessings upon his name). You've gone too far! I insist you retract your statement.

It was Calvin ( a false idol ) who I believe was one of the first to proclaim that the 120 were attributed to the flood in Gen 6:3 instead of the lifespan of man....at least that's what I read in some of my research.... So it was one mans opinion that started this whole line of nonsense.

And I've shown several examples why Genesis cannot be literal, go take a look at the flood and the ark thread with the asexual reproductive whiptails. If you find one example of the literal wrong, then the whole thing is wrong.....

So believe in a twisted version of Genesis but be prepared to answer for it....but the only thing I retract is the turtle head poking out before I reach a bathroom.

yo This Shit Is Gettin Serious My Nigs

another psycho rant. off topic blabbering from YZF.....

100% on topic

:rolleyes:

Believe me, I roll my eyes every time you post here

LOL, and I laugh at your ignorant ramblings every time you post.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

It was Calvin ( a false idol )....

That's it. I can no longer speak with you.

That's it. I can no longer speak with you.

:crying:

:gay2:

Youre the one with the 'roommate'...

what's wrong with that? you never had a roommate?

I make too much money...totally off topic.

Lets get back to how Calvin messed up Genesis, and how mans lifespan is set in the bible but people have outlived all watermarks set.

I make enough money, too, that's not the point

post a peer reviewed article supporting your position that "Calvin messed up Genesis"

I already have, you look it up. several articles on the net on what this passage means, its just that you're to lazy to do any of your own research.

Its called google man, and it has more uses than just pr0nz.

:rolleyes:

still waiting...


Here is Calvin's comment on this:
"Yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years . Certain writers of antiquity, such as Lactantius, and others, have too grossly blundered in thinking that the term of human life was limited within this space of time; whereas, it is evident, that the language used in this place refers not to the private life of any one, but to a time of repentance to be granted to the whole world."

What does this tell us? That this is Calvin's opinion on this passage. He even quotes another person,Lactantius, taught the son of Constantine, who disagrees with him.

So have fun and go look up the "Lactantius, Institutes" if you want that viewpoint that you asked for, but there are several, and this is just one, so you little diversion has really FAILED.

which again backs up my original point and refutes yours...do you enjoy owning yourself repeatedly?

lol..."seek help"...seriously

Your original point?

You asked for someone who disagrees with Calvins point, I gave you one.
:owned:

You're little stupid strawman is just that...stupid.

my original point was that God's word to Noah was primarily a warning/notice of the time left before the Flood came upon the earth...above you apparently quote Calvin from an unknown source (no citation) which backs up my original statement on p.1 of this thread...how dumb are you?

How dumb are you?

http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/genesis/calvin/genesis6.htm

There is your quote...directly from Calvin.

How about a cup of STFU now ..LOL

Ultimately :owned:

post 6

/thread

LOL you wish, I quote Calvins view and he quotes the opposing Lactantius.

Thus by transitivity Calvin proved my point and answered you question on of there is an opposing view....And you say you are an 'eagle' among turkeys..." :roll:

You have no logic at all do you. You have been humbled....again!

:owned:

so?
how? because your wacky assertion contradicts Calvin (and a host of others)?


Don't you get it...:rolleyes:

Calvin himself admits that there are others that oppose his view. Thus this validates my point that there are others that disagree with him.

My assertion is the same as Calvins that there are opposing views, which you wanted proof of, and I gave you proof thru Calvin himself!....geez, its like explaining to a 4 year old.


who are you?


Good question...I'm someone who is owning every point you bring up....
:roll:
and
:owned:

Its funny that you want divert the real issue of there are plenty of examples in the Bible that put a limit to human lifespan, yet we have plenty of examples where what is stated is not true....

sure, but Calvin is regarded as one of the greatest Bible scholars that ever lived, so by bringing him up as contradicting your point, you're not building any credibility for your case...pretty obvious I would think


So hes a great bible scholar...but that doesn't make him 100% right all of the time. :rolleyes:

He didn't write any scripture, so your argument of if he is divinely inspired has no merit!

And I brought him up to prove even he even acknowledged there is an opposing view, which you wanted proof of....You still dont get it! :lmfao:

if that's the best you could come up with, your position is beyond weak, it's non-existent

So you are saying that Calvins viewpoint is weak and nonexistent...:bigthumb:

You just :owned: yourself

no, your point is weak and nonexistent

again, Calvin REFUTES your position...post a noted scholar who supports it, directly

Dude, are you having a brain fart? You asked to post a noted scholar and I did. (Lactantius)
Not only did I post one, but I did thru Calvin's acknowledgment that there was an opposing viewpoint which was Lactantius.

ITS NOT THE POINT THAT CALVIN REFUTES IT, ITS THE POINT THAT CALVIN ACKNOWLEDGES THERE ARE SCHOLARS THAT HOLD A DIFFERENT POSITION, THE SAME POSITION THAT I AM MAKING AND THE SAME ONE YOU ASKED FOR AND EXAMPLE OF.

If that doesn't spell it out for you, then all hope is lost for you. Go back to playing with blocks.

LOL....never heard of him, and I'm sure you hadn't either, before your little google search...hardly anyone of merit/notoriety in Church history

FAIL!

:rolleyes:

beyond :owned:...demolished

Well if Calvin quotes him, then he must of been reputable and of merit.

You fail at any ownage.

I'm with yzf 100%, the 120 years was a period of grace before the flood

I'm with yzf 100%, the 120 years was a period of grace before the flood

I've heard 4 different interpretations now.

120 before the flood came.
120 years maximum lifespan.
120 for man to repent for the flood (kind of similar)
and a forth that is just too wacky that I forgot but it had to do with Adam and that the 'man' in that scripture was attributed to him.

The 120 years is attributed to Calvin for the grace period before the flood. But most Jewish scholars that I have read say its the 120 years max lifespan.

I read a good article on this that quotes a bad translation of the greek to english of this where it states that the 120 grace period is incorrect, and was the basis for Calvins interpretation. They quoted the Hebrew text of this, and its pretty clear that its was meant for mans life span. This was also tied into Moses, as he was the last man to speak with God, thus the first part of the passage.

Call me weird, but I'll take the Hebrew above a translation of a translation.

God put forth that mans life span will not reach past 120 years.
Yet we have the oldest living person who lived well beyond that 120 mark.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_living_person


"The longest unambiguously documented lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France (1875–1997), who died aged 122 years and 164 days. "

So what does this say about the 'Literal Genesis". Clearly we have a person that has outlived Gods word...how can that be?

Keep in mind too that this was done on a lunar calendar, which is shorter than the solar calendar (354 as opposed to 365 days 6 hours 13 minutes 53 seconds).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_calendar

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/351385/lunar-year#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=lunar%20year%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia

If you do the conversion, God's will of 120 years and no older is further falsified by your statement since she would have technically been 125 if we were still following the lunar year. Had she been in Salem in the 1600's, she would have been branded a witch and burned at the stake!

Keep in mind too that this was done on a lunar calendar, which is shorter than the solar calendar (354 as opposed to 365 days 6 hours 13 minutes 53 seconds).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_calendar

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/351385/lunar-year#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=lunar%20year%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia

If you do the conversion, God's will of 120 years and no older is further falsified by your statement since she would have technically been 125 if we were still following the lunar year. Had she been in Salem in the 1600's, she would have been branded a witch and burned at the stake!

ARe you saying at the time of the writing of the book of Genesis, that it was based off of the lunar calendar....gonna have to research this.

ARe you saying at the time of the writing of the book of Genesis, that it was based off of the lunar calendar....gonna have to research this.

Precisely. You don't have to look far either, most elementary history textbooks will have this information if they cover Constantinople agriculture. Most biblical references to Constantinople in the first testement are a couple thousand years BC, which predates the usage of the solar calendar.

These threads are a perfect example of why debate with Biblical literalists doesn't really work.

No matter what response to one of YZF's assertions is given, he will automatically produce some kind of workaround, no matter how much of a stretch it may be, as his fundamental underlying belief is that "XX MUST be true because the bible says it is, and so yy must be false for this reason, even if I cannot prove it is false via other means".

He (and others) will come up with SOME solution that works within the confines of what they believe, as they are of the mind that since their beliefs (to them) are the only solid "known", everything else is to be structured around this. They will buy into just about any "unknown" so long as they can justify it as meshing with the scripture, hence their sometimes wacky assertions that seem a little forced.

Obviously, it's just fine that they believe all this stuff, just like it's fine that we all believe whatever we believe, but my point is that Biblical literalism (and any other religious literalism) generally makes debate impossible. There is little point in tossing topics into a religion forum trying to debunk the scripture, as the literalists will always be able to find some reason or other why certain natural phenomena are true (i.e. "creation time dilation" accounting for visibility of light from distant stars, et cetera). There is no mention of time dilation in the scripture, however it doesn't NOT mention it either, so they grab hold of this as a possible explanation of a phenomenon that would otherwise run contrary to their beliefs.

Just like there's no biblical mention of "intense radiation" from when God "stretched out the heavens like a curtain", but it doesn't NOT say there was radiation, so their response is "well, there MUST have been, because that would explain X".



EDIT: It's too bad the cosmologist thread got closed, as I actually agree with the point being made there enthusiastically. Cosmology and observation of nature in general yield far more evidence FOR intelligent design than against it, simply because of the unbelievable odds against the universe and earth having formed as it has. The only real argument AGAINST intelligent design of the universe is that we have no concrete evidence showing that it is the case, but that is to be said of many things, all of which may be just as "likely". We don't really have any concrete evidence AGAINST it either, and thus I see no harm in speculating along the vein of the alternative that seems more probable via the odds/statistics. The problem comes when people then try to sync this up against the Bible, the Koran, or whatever, thinking that just because intelligent design of some sort appears to be likely that they and their organized religion have the particulars all figured out.

LOL @ Mark.....

The Koran isn't even in the same ball park with the Bible in terms of it's historical accuracy or logical premises (72 virgins??), so comparing the two is silly.

My point was that people look at the world and, to most unbiased observers, it would seem that things have formed in the way that they have against enormous odds in nearly every instance, and thus this would generally lead to a predisposition towards at least SOME sort of intelligent design.

The problem comes in when people try to jam the natural evidence for intelligent design into flawed religious texts that have been written by human beings. It undermines the credibility the natural evidence would otherwise have when it's presented alongside a bunch of fairy tale hocus pocus from the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or any other religious text that has BEEN CREATED BY HUMAN BEINGS. I am not of the mind that any one text really has anything any more figured out than any other, and so no, I'm not going to recognize that the Bible (if that can even be recognized as a single text despite it's myriad versions and interpretations) is any closer to being infallible than the Koran or any other document.

The texts are ALL valuable to mankind in that they are invaluable teaching tools for general guidelines of morality and behaviour, but I don't recognize any of them as being wholly historically accurate in any credible sense. They are a collection of accounts of different people from widely different time periods, they each contain a mixture of both historical details and utter flights of fancy.

That said, I was trying to make the point that if one studies the natural evidence, just on the basis of odds and statistics, the evidence tends to point towards the idea that things were designed specifically to "work" rather than having simply worked out by chance.

Before you reply, it should be pretty obvious that if you're coming from the perspective of Biblical inerrancy, we're not going to reach any sort of reconciliation here, so you may as well let just state my viewpoint and then you can state yours, rather than either of us attempting to actually refute each other.

No, you believe it's flawed, but you don't know. Were you there? Yours' is simply another (different) religious belief, but it's no more proven or empirical then the account of Creation in Genesis. The track record of the Bible concerning the history of Israel, as well as their present situation, has been 100% accurate. The origin of the scriptures is with God, not with man, regardless of what you or anyone thinks.

I don't KNOW it was flawed, but how does anyone know it wasn't?

My point is that both the scientific community and the various organized religions of the world like to assume that they each know, or at least are capable of deducing, Everything. I believe that this is a little naive.

Humans cling both to the supposed infallibility of modern science and to religion because humans seem very uncomfortable with just not knowing the answer to everything. Contrarily, I am quite convinced that neither camp has all the answers nor do I ever necessarily think we'll obtain all said answers.

Comfort with our own ignorance is part of the human experience.

That said, I do think it's okay to look around and wonder about things, which is why I generally support the idea of SOME sort of intelligent design, because it just seems as if it is the more likely alternative to everything having randomly fallen into place in such improbable fashion.

Many parts of the Bible can no more be "proven" accurate than they can be proven inaccurate. A lack of proof in either direction is not a reason to say with any certainty that something is either so or not so. You're inclined to say it's so because you're more comfortable with knowing than not knowing.

Correct. So exactly what about Genesis is so hard for you to believe? Is it easier to believe bacteria mutated into human beings over millions of years? Amaizng how such absurd religious fantasies are considered "wisdom" in an incredibly confused age.

Well, I DO happen to put stock in things like carbon dating, fossils, and the shifts in the plates of the earth over time that quite obviously occurred more than a few thousand years ago. How else would we explain things like massive meteor craters that, were they only a few thousand years old, would still have been enough to fill our skies with ash to this day?


So in conclusion, this, ladies and gentleman, is why I originally asserted that debate with proponents of Biblical inerrancy is impossible. It is not a rational exercise.

It's fine that you believe all this, but it's not fine to assume that we can have a rational discussion about it because, by your own admission, your talking points are based on justification rooted in something other than sheer reason.

I'm not trying to discredit your religion or your beliefs, but I am asserting that it's silly for us to argue about it.

LOL @ Mark.....

Oops... I banned him again.

Oops... I banned him again.

Your bad...we'll forgive.

How many alternate aliases has that guy had when he's been banned?

BTW, my brother is still ticked you axed his anti-christ profile.....he only got to post a couple of times!

Oops... I banned him again.
I actually kind of like the fact that he has such a sad existance that he keeps making new screen names and getting banned. The longer we can keep him banned the better this site will be IMHO......


When you guys ban him when he does this does he get additional time added on to his ban? Just curious....

Was that YZF I was arguing with?

I was, in my opinion, kicking the shit out of him, you could've let him stay, lol.

pretty easy to see who kicked the shit out of who, hashy, you never even took a position here, any numbnut can play fence rider

perhaps youre right....


but it takes a special kind of numbnut to have as sad and lonely an existence as yours--the complete loser of a middle-aged man that has to keep coming back time and again after being not only told that no one wants you here, but booted out on your ass as well. What the hell is your problem? You always talked about how worthless this place is--yet you cannot stay away, even if it means making this much of an ass of yourself with all these screen names and constant "I am not mark" bullshit?

I couldnt pity you more....The existence youre showing us makes suicide look like a kind alternative, and if I had to choose between being you and ramming my head repeatedly into a meatgrinder, it's an easy choice--just call me ground beef....

I know how that can be arranged, believe me

Dude, that's an implied death threat ...AGAIN.

Do you really want the Feds ringing your doorbell? Maybe then you'll get the help that you need.

I know how that can be arranged, believe me

lol

But I'm the one who has problems, right?

I know how that can be arranged, believe me

after all these years, why are you still just talking about it then, marky?

Come get some....trust me, you dont have what it takes....hey, I've got a great idea!! I can meet you at the airport in Charlotte....in the parking garage.....where we all know you wont even show up because youre nothing more than the mindless arrogant blowhard that we all know to be all talk. The minute anyone calls your bluff you find some reason to pussy out....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Ok, so he just sent me this PM:

Title:

"We can continue this debate off-line (unless you're scared)"

It is not a rational exercise

Again, the question of origins/ancient history is not observable, testable, or repeatable. We have precious few facts in hand. To say that the Genesis account is "flawed" is simply your religious belief, it's not based on anything.

You were hardly "kicking my ass", son, I've heard all your lame talking points countless times on RX-7Club and other forums for years. People like you are utterly clueless about Flood geology, catastrophic plate tectonics, etc. In fact your contradictory statement about C-14 shows how ignorant you are, since C-14 cannot be used to date rocks at vast imaginary epochs, and is used to date organic artifacts at thousands of years.


I actually wasn't even arguing with him, I was just trying to demonstrate that any attempt to argue with a Biblical Literalist is futile, as he has obviously proven here.

This shit is hysterical.


EDIT: He did not leave me an email or any other means to contact him "offline". If he had, I would be signing him up for mexican donkey porn spam right now.

Its on this page....

http://www.theforumlounge.com/sitemap/oh-snap-t11256.html
its the fzr100098

And before I get a warning about this it was Kevin that posted it, so I'm off the hook.